You clearly have a different concept of YOUR consistency than I have. How the lack of consistency by CoCs who rule differently about different kerbs on different days and different track can count as CONSISTENCY I fail to grasp........ unless, of course, you mean that they are CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT!
How you imagine that qualifies as YOUR consistsnecy I simply cannot imagine. You are claiming that kerbing is OK ..... BECAUSE..... CoCs rule about it but you won't be consistent and say that slow rolling laps are OK beasue the CoCs rule about those TOO! Stunning!
This is just TOO topsy Turvy for me to grasp...... sorry!
All your arguments on this subject depend, not on your MORAL view but on an EXPEDIENT view! You do X and thus it IS morally acceptable, you do NOT do Y and therefore it is NOT morally acceptable. You will want to clam that it is the REVERSE of that but it plainly ISN'T for the following, over-riding, reason
There CAN be no MORALISTIC justification for ignoring a rule (e.g.:kerbs) when you have SIGNED ON stating that you WILL accept all the rules! Tacitly.....even the STUPID ones! Regardless of the stupidity of ANY of the rules, you threw away your claim to MORALITY when you decided to breach a rule you had PROMISED to keep! Being happy with the CoCs rulings on anything does NOT affect the morality..... you signed to say you would OBEY THE RULES and you have CHOSEN to breach them. Don't go claiming moral superiority after THAT! Of course..... had you written on the application form that you would ONLY obey rules with which you agree, then you MIGHT be able to claim moral turpitude but .... I suspect you DON'T add that to the form...... or you would NOT be racing!
Please note, I am STRESSING that I do NOT claim any moral high ground for MY position! I 'cheated' in various ways, just like you do (e.g., kerbing!) but I am NOT claiming to be 'moral' in doing so. You are claiming the moral high ground when you have NO justification so to do!
Ian
|
|
